[thaumasiotes]

> Not sure about YouTube but WordPress does not allow the use of the name.

They may not like it, but they don't have the power to disallow you from using their name to refer to them. That's allowed.

[chiefalchemist]

Actually, they do. It's copyright. Plenty of legal precedent. They defend WordPress, but are willing to allow WP.

The law is on their side.

[thaumasiotes]

> Actually, they do.

No, they don't.

> It's copyright.

No, it isn't. It's trademark. There is no such concept as copyright in a single word.

> The law is on their side.

Again, no, it isn't.

What was the point of your comment? Why talk if you're not worried about whether what you're saying is true or false?

[chiefalchemist]

Yes. Trademark not copyright. My mistake.

Otherwise: https://wordpressfoundation.org/trademark-policy/

FFS Relax. It was an oversight on my part. It's minor at best in larger scheme of things. Maybe you're having a tough day? God bless you. But this is nothing to go to the mat over.

You could have just said, "Oh. Maybe you're confusing trademark and copyright?". The last thing the world and HN needs is another high-strung belligerent asshole. That doesn't help anyone, or anything, sans your ego. It's not a good look.

[thaumasiotes]

> Yes. Trademark not copyright. My mistake.

That is your most minor mistake. The much larger one is that you are claiming that the law supports the trademark policy you link to. It doesn't. Everyone remains free to use a trademark belonging to wordpress in order to refer to wordpress.

You are not free to use any such mark - the WordPress Foundation would be on very solid ground in telling you to stop using their graphical logo. But they can't stop you from using "WordPress" in the name of your for-profit company, which you'll note is quite explicitly contrary to their stated policy.